Is the CIA Undermining Our Mission in Afghanistan?

Revelations that Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai and purportedly a major figure in Afghanistan's drug trade, is on the CIA payroll
could put the intelligence organization at odds with the U.S. military and its efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. As Major General Michael T.
Flynn, the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan, told the New York Times, "If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in
Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just
undermining ourselves," he said. "The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone."

CIA
officials purchased intelligence from Karzai and used
his land for counterterrorism missions. But Karzai's continued involvement in the opium industry, which
is a primary source of funding for Taliban insurgents, could fuel the
Taliban in its war with the U.S. military. As many have pointed out,
this would mean the CIA is indirectly bankrolling our enemy in Afghanistan
and undermining the anti-Taliban mission. What does this apparent conflict mean for America's war in Afghanistan?

Ahmed Karzai Is Our 'Biggest Problem' Former adviser to General Stanley McChrystal and Army Ranger officer Andrew Exum says that Karzai is considered a huge hurdle to success in Afghanistan. "I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this
report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in
southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his
activities as the biggest
problem they face -- bigger than
the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is
'the agency's guy', that leads to a huge point of friction between
NATO/ISAF and the CIA."

Afghan War Began With CIA MoneySpencer Ackerman suggests
our initial strategy in Afghanistan starting eight years ago sowed the seeds of
today's revelation and all the trouble it will cause us. "[The war
began] with CIA operatives meeting with
Northern Alliance commanders and warlords, bearing briefcases and
duffel bags full of cash to rent their allegiance for a strike down
into Kabul and Kandahar to dislodge the Taliban," he writes. "But once
you start paying warlords with dubious human rights records,
it can be very difficult to cut off or phase out the payments,
particularly when the political structure necessary to keep the Afghan
governance enterprise that supports the U.S. presence in business is
essentially held together with baling wire."

This Is How Business Is Done Time's Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, insists
that using drug lords has always been necessary in gritty Afghanistan,
starting with the 2001 invasion. "The CIA knew that its ally the Tajik
Northern Alliance was a paid-up
proxy of Iran, just as it was fully aware that another ally, Uzbek
General Dostom, was one of Afghanistan's great butchers (though Dostum
has always denied the widespread allegations of his brutality). When it
came to finding crucial partners on the ground, there were simply no
alternatives. And let's not forget that CIA isn't the only one with
questionable people on its payroll. Since the beginning of the war NATO
has been bribing drug smugglers to let fuel pass through the Khyber
pass from Pakistan into Afghanistan. NATO payments, thousands of
dollars for each truck, have to dwarf anything the CIA is giving to
Ahmed Wali Karzai."

CIA Oversight Badly Needed The American Prospect's Adam Serwer makes the case
for stricter congressional oversight of the CIA. "My question is, did
Congress know about the relationship? Yesterday the House Dems on the
intelligence committee accused
the CIA of misleading or witholding [sic] information from them five times,
but only cited four instances. Was yesterday’s revelation one of those
times?" has asks. "Because if the Times report is true, that means that the CIA has
not only been undermining the military’s efforts to cut down the
Taliban’s revenue base, but it also means that it’s possible that
American tax dollars have inadvertently helped fund the same people who
are killing American soldiers."

Did U.S. Leak The Story? Time's Joe Klein speculates why
it may have leaked, though he admits it may not have. "You've got to
wonder why it has broken now, two weeks before the Afghan presidential
runoff. The most obvious conspiracy theory--and these are rarely
right--is
that the U.S. has decided to let this news slip now to adversely affect
Karzai in the coming election. A less obvious but, to my mind, more
plausible theory is that the
U.S. needed to make Ahmed Wali Karzai radioactive so that he could no
longer run and ruin Kandahar province as its shadow governor."

Indicative of This War's Folly Salon's Glenn Greenwald laments the incompatibility of targeting some Afghan drug lords while hiring others. "So we're so intent on exterminating Afghan drug 'kingpins' that we're
compiling secret lists of the ones we will murder on sight -- except
perhaps for those we've been keeping on our payroll and who have been
organizing private militias for us, though perhaps we'll kill them,
too. What an excellent war." The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan agrees, calling the U.S. mission "neo-imperial."

News reports are focusing on the Germanwings pilot's possible depression, following a familiar script in the wake of mass killings. But the evidence shows violence is extremely rare among the mentally ill.